Statin drugs are the worlds greatest medical lie.

Two studies in 2015 sum up the problem with statin. The first showed that it made very little difference to mortality. In other words, if you take the drugs all your life it wont reduce your risk of a heart attack or stroke. The other showed it increased the rate of diabetes by almost 100% along with diabetic complications, reduced exercise capacity and weight gain. During the eight years of the study, the group taking statins had a 90% increased risk of developing diabetes for the first time, compared to non-statin users, and a 250% increased risk of diabetes with complications. This is serious.

The problem arises from the fact that cholesterol is not the number one killer it is made out to be. In fact it an essential ingredient in lots of you essential biochemistry. So blocking the production of cholesterol blocks many essential biochemical functions like your hormones and vitamin D production. However, the drugs do more than just that they stop the production of many other important chemicals your body needs to function every day such as Coenzyme Q10. CoQ10 is essential to cellular metabolism and your daily energy requirements, that is if you feel tired or not. This is probably one of the reasons why statin dugs increase the rates of diabetes. It is also linked with the increased rates of muscle damage, aches and pains as well as memory and mind problems. In the years from 2004 to 2014 the FDA Adverse Events Databases reported that there were 36,605 reports of brain dysfunction which included memory impairment, transient cases of global amnesia, confusion, paranoia, disorientation, depression, and dementia related to statin use. This number is thought to represent only 1-10% of the true number of adverse drug reactions so it is more likely to be in the hundreds of thousands.

What makes this even worse is that cholesterol has never been shown to cause heart attack or stroke. The research all now shows that these conditions are inflammatory processes linked with oxidation and acidosis. Clearly and easily resolved with the right nutrition and lifestyle changes. NOT DRUGS

J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Nov;30(11):1599-610. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3335-1. Epub 2015 Apr 28. Statins and New-Onset Diabetes Mellitus and Diabetic Complications: A Retrospective Cohort Study of US Healthy Adults.Mansi I1,2, Frei CR3,4, Wang CP5, Mortensen EM6,7.



Blood pressure highest in diet drinking kids

In a study of soft drink consumption of around 500 fifth graders in the US, 25 (5.1%) reported to be nonconsumers, 419 (85.9%) were sugar-sweetened soft drink consumers, and 44 (9%) were diet soft drink consumers. The Mean Systolic Blood Pressure (the higher number) and Diastolic Blood Pressure (the lower number) were 101.3/57.8, 102.6/58.8, and 106.0/61.3 mmHg for these three groups of consumption, respectively. It showed that the highest blood pressure was associated with diet drinks and the lowest with those who abstained from soft drinks.

After adjustment for sex, age, BMI, physical activity, addition of salt to food, and education of the head of the family, SBP was 5.4 mmHg higher in the diet soft drink consumers group compared with the nonconsumers group and 3.3 mmHg higher compared with the sugar-sweetened consumers group. Moreover, DBP was also higher among diet soft drink consumers compared with nonconsumers, with a difference of 3.3 mmHg, and compared with sugar-sweetened consumers, with a difference of 2.3 mmHg.

Earlier research dating back nearly 10 years shows much the same results between sugar and diet drinks and increasing blood pressure (Appel  et al. 2009; D’Agostino et al. 2007; Flicklinger et al. 2010). The Framingham Study reported that consumption of more than one soft drink per day significantly increases one’s risk of developing high blood pressure and metabolic syndrome, regardless of whether it is a diet or regular beverage (Appel et al. 2009; D’Agostino et al. 2007).

Souza, Bárbara et al.2016. Soft drink consumption, mainly diet ones, is associated with increased blood pressure in adolescents. Journal of Hypertension: February 2016 - Volume 34 - Issue 2 - p 221–225. doi: 10.1097/HJH.0000000000000800


Diet drinks do not work and may contribute to weight gain

Artificial sweeteners in diet drinks and colas aren’t inert. Despite having no or low calories, they change the way the body processes sugar, and they contribute to diabetes and weight gain. In one study of 474 older adults, all participants saw their waistlines expand, yet those who reported drinking diet drinks had 70% greater increases in waistline growth than non-diet-soda-drinkers 9.5 years later. For those who consumed two or more diet drinks a day, waistline increase was 500% greater than among non-diet-soda-drinkers. Another study reported a striking dose-response relationship: increasing diet drinks was associated with escalating abdominal obesity. The more the participants consumed, the more obesity they experienced. In a study of 17 obese people, those who drank water sweetened with sucralose (Splenda®, an artificial sweetener) saw their insulin levels rise by 20%. In support of this, a recent study found consumption of artificial sweeteners drives the development of glucose intolerance through upsetting the gut microflora. These sweetener-altered microbial metabolic pathways are linked to host susceptibility to metabolic disease and obesity.

Similarly, studies in animals suggest that artificial sweetener consumption may lead to even more eating and weight gain, perhaps in part because it triggers the body to start storing more calories as fat. Rats fed artificial sweeteners in conjunction with their normal diet consumed more calories and got fatter. In another study, rats eating artificially sweetened yoghurt ate more chow than those eating sugar-sweetened yoghurt, so overall calorie intakes were the same. However, the rats consuming artificial sweetener gained weight at a rate faster than those eating sugar.


Diet binging is just as good for weight loss as calorie restriction diets.

Dieting and calorie restriction is popular for weight management. However, there is little research to show their effectiveness especially over long periods and adhering to the long-term energy restriction that is required to achieve lasting, clinically significant weight loss is notoriously difficult.

Weight reducing diets involving intermittent energy restriction have recently gained popularity amongst health professionals and members of the public alike. These involve restricting energy intake by varying degrees for a pre-defined period of time, and eating ad libitum (i.e. to satisfy appetite)–or at least more than during the energy-restricted period—at all other times. The most common form of intermittent energy restriction is ‘intermittent fasting’.

In this study mice that were made obese by a diet high in fat and sugar for 22 weeks were then fed one of two energy-restricted normal chow diets for a 12-week weight loss phase. The continuous diet (CD) provided 82% of the energy intake of age-matched ad libitum chow-fed controls. The intermittent diet (ID) provided cycles of 82% of control intake for 5–6 consecutive days, and ad libitum intake for 1–3 days.

Mice on the ID overall ate significantly more than CD mice however there were no significant differences between the two trial groups at the end.  Body weight, fat mass, circulating glucose or insulin concentrations, or the insulin resistance index were the same.

This type of intermittent moderate energy restriction may offer an advantage over continuous moderate energy restriction, because it induces significantly greater weight loss relative to energy deficit in mice.

The rationale for this is that while energy restriction—notably severe energy restriction—is known to induce adaptive responses such as reduced energy expenditure that inhibit further weight loss and promote weight regain. In other words you reduce your metabolism when you stay on energy restricted diets and having a break form them appears to kick start the metabolism.

So it seems that if you break your diet it ok and may actually have some advantages but only iff like the mice you eat as much healthy food as you want. Not processed foods.


Intermittent Moderate Energy Restriction Improves Weight Loss Efficiency in Diet-Induced Obese Mice

Radhika V. Seimon,

Yan-Chuan Shi,

Katy Slack,

Kailun Lee,

Hamish A. Fernando,

Amy D. Nguyen,

Lei Zhang,

Shu Lin,

Ronaldo F. Enriquez,

Jackie Lau,

Herbert Herzog ,

Amanda Sainsbury

January 19, 2016

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0145157


Over 40% of US children have chronic illness and it is getting worse.

In a study of 91 642; children aged 0–17 years reported that an estimated 43% of US children (32 million) currently have at least 1 of 20 chronic health conditions assessed, increasing to 54.1% when overweight, obesity, or being at risk for developmental delays are included; 19.2% (14.2 million) have conditions resulting in a special health care need, a 1.6 point increase since 2003. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2010.08.011

The health of our Kids is getting worse with the increase in rates of chronic illness including autism spectrum disorders, asthma and allergies, weight gain, diabetes Type 1 and 2 and childhood cancers. The current system is letting our kids down and we need to refocus on the real Kids health issues.

A recent article I published on facebook estimate that 1 in 45 U.S. children now had autism.
The latest figure from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention gives for autism based on different surveys; the most rigorous one gives a lower estimate of 1 in 68 children. The new number is from a survey of parents of 13,000 children, who were asked last year if their child were ever diagnosed with autism or a related disorder. The lower CDC estimate is from researchers checking health and school records for more than 47,000 children. The new number supports a belief that 1 in 68 is an underestimate. Estimates of how common autism is have been steadily increasing. In 2007, the CDC estimated 1 in 150 children had autism. I also put an article up showing kids are now at risk of cardio vascular disease including high blood pressure and atherosclerosis.

Isn’t it time we did something about it now. The solution is not coming from the existing medical system. It is only getting worse.